Consensus vs. Groupthink in Golf Course Rankings

[Michael Morandi]

Keynes comments on investing might apply to course ratings:


“Professional investment may be likened to those newspaper competitions in which the competitors have to pick out the six prettiest faces from a hundred photographs, the prize being awarded to the competitor whose choice most nearly corresponds to the average preferences of the competitors as a whole; so that teach competitor has to pick not those faces which he himself finds prettiest, but those which he thinks likeliest to catch the fancy of the other competitors, all of whom are looking at the problem from the same point of view. It is not a case of choosing those which, to the best of one's judgement are really the prettiest, nor even those which average opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest. We have reached the third degree where we devote our intelligences to anticipating what average opinion expects the average opinion to be. And there are some, I believe, who practice the fourth, fifth and higher degrees.”

[Ben Sims]

Ben, you are comparing military decision making with golf course rankings procedure. Does this make sense given the vast difference in complexity?

Ciao

Sean,


No that’s not what I am doing. I am comparing the task of building a low level tactical plan with the consensus vs groupthink conversation we are having. The process of building consensus for how we did things took years and alot of trial and error. When it was time to challenge and refine our thoughts, we did. But we absolutely didn’t make new tactics and techniques because someone wanted to be different.


It’s taken a couple decades for the best practices to be codified. That’s around the same amount of time it’s taken for GCA ideals to become what Tom is calling groupthink and I’m arguing is consensus.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I have never considered this.  It certainly isn't the reason I criticize Pebble Beach more than other places.  I've criticized Augusta National just as much, but maybe you'll say that is also easy because I wouldn't assume I am ever going to play there again.  I also called The National Golf Links of America "quirky" and the caddie master there still teases me about it to this day [but somehow I am still welcome].

Tom, there's a reason you're being invited to Augusta and you're probably not paying at Pebble anyway, and it's obviously not because you're some rater for Golf. It's exceptionally admirable that pretty much everyone knows you're going to speak your mind the vast majority of the time. I suspect it is also pretty rare. My aside about Pebble isn't that raters aren't able to give their honest opinion. It's that the diversity of opinion is necessarily limited by access.

The raters who play the most exclusionary courses are very probably not a random sampling of the pool of raters (much less golf enthusiasts). Suppose you have 15 or 20 raters that come play PV, and they end up rated #1. We don't then suggest that PV invites 20 new raters to come through the next year until all 100, 1000, or 10,000 raters (depending on the org) has played, right? I'm pretty skeptical that that would happen, but I honestly don't know.

If we have a limited number of raters come through, we should suspect that those ratings will by sticky. Combine that with the fact that folks who didn't love the course probably won't go though the effort to get back. Whereas someone who doesn't like Pebble might be able to swing by if they're in Monterey, because why not? Here, we've got and system that creates lopsided outcomes when access is restricted. Add in the fact that most rating orgs either "toss" or "investigate" statistical outliers, and you've got a system designed to create outcomes that look like group think.

Here, nothing nefarious need be happening, it's just that a chilling effect on criticism can show up as much in selection bias as it can in folks genuinely holding their tongue to maintain good relationships. Folks who make the effort to return to an exclusive course probably already love it, and few will make that same effort to return to an exclusive course just to shit on it.

[Ben Sims]

Sorry Tom, delayed response. You started the other thread by saying


“Ben Sims' post on the importance of consensus [in the Groupthink thread] has frustrated me, because the very nature of Groupthink is that it's safer to stay with the consensus than to stick your neck out and disagree.”

Okay fair enough. But using the word “safe” is interesting to me. Evolving and being innovative in a given field is something to be championed. Having seen a site visit of yours in person, I can confidently say that telling an associate to sleep on something is akin to a weapons officer seeing a plan for an egress and saying, “yeah okay that’s cool but maybe look at a better way.” And in these scenarios, consensus is reached by trial and error and experience. It’s not groupthink to acquiesce to a “safer” line of thinking. It’s using best practices.

But we’re talking about rating and comparing courses here. I’d argue getting it right when editing a green or judging the survivability of an egress is  more important than who’s taking a chance rating/reviewing a course. So maybe you’re right. Consensus as it applies to *judging* courses can be groupthink. I’m still willing to debate that it isn’t. That over time, we learn and develop our opinions and that espousing those ideals doesn’t mean we’re sheep. It means we’re listening.

Edit PS—but if you want some opinions on some sacred cows, just ask.

[Mark_Fine]

I had to laugh as I just read an article listing the 29 most beautiful lakes in the U.S.     You have to wonder who was on the panel to come up with the ratings and how did they do it? Talk about a controversial list!!  Can’t you imagine how you put a meaningful and accurate list like that together?  Basically you don’t!  I think we are way ahead of the game with our ratings of golf courses.  But that won’t stop all the discussion and debate about how good or bad they are or if all the magazines are colluding which is why they basically look the same


GW essentially does this with their Classic vs Modern lists but maybe the list of the Top 100 courses should have to be courses at least 50 or 75 years old to be included.  At least then we will know they are not a flash in the pan and have passed the test of time! 

[Mike Nuzzo]

P.S.  If Pine Valley is so perfect then why is Tom Fazio flexing about blowing up several greens and rebuilding them?

Isn't this the ultimate groupthink? changing one of the best courses in the world because enough deem it deficient.
Same as when Dawson changed The Old Course.


Seems green speeds are a result of groupthink.
No plugging bunkers.
Fairness.


When I appreciate an artwork, song, or a beer at some point I ask myself have I ever seen, heard, or tasted anything like it before.


The Covey - may be the best playing course in Texas - but to my eye, it doesn't look different (interesting) enough to make me want to go visit tomorrow.


Peace

[Tags:]

Tags: